All right we are going to start off with the public advisory. This meeting will be
conducted in a hybrid model with both in-person and virtual participation. The
teleconference will be recorded as any ZAB meeting is recorded and all other
rules of procedure and decorum will apply for ZAB meetings conducted by
teleconference or video conference. Virtual participation. To access the
meeting remotely join from a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone, or Android device. Please use the
URL which is located on the agenda. If you do not wish for your name to appear
on the screen then use the drop-down menu and click on rename to rename
yourself to be anonymous. To request to speak use the raise hand icon by rolling
over the bottom of your screen. To join by phone dial the number which is in
your agenda and the webinar ID which is also in the agenda. If you wish to comment
during the public comment portion of the agenda press star 9 and wait to be recognized by the chair.
One slightly new item on for virtual participation is we actually are not using a live capture anymore
and we are using a the zoom captioning feature. So one thing that will mean is that if you are
on zoom and you'd like to turn on your caption there will be a CC button at the bottom of your
your screen that should allow you to turn on your captions.
If you're having any issue with this,
the best time to let me know is especially
during public comment on non-agenda items.
That's going to come up in about five minutes.
I'm happy to walk you through that and we can figure that out together.
We obviously want to make sure everyone
can read anything they need to on Zoom.
So do let me know if our meeting for everyone in the room,
if our meeting does run much past nine
or looks like it's going to,
we will still take a break around then.
But indeed, no one is typing up our meetings now,
so that's fun and new.
All right, so let's see.
So public testimony guidelines.
To speak at a public hearing,
please submit a speaker card to planning staff
prior to the start of the meeting.
Those are those green cards, which are right up here,
or yellow, I kind of forgot the color,
one of the cards, green, right up here.
come and submit one now if you haven't and we will go in person first and then
move over to zoom and I will recognize people on zoom by asking you to raise
your hand and I will very much prompt you when that comes up. This meeting will
be conducted in accordance with the Brown Act government code section five
four nine five three any member of the public may attend this meeting the chair
may limit the number of speakers and the length of time allowed to each speaker
All right, we will now do roll call and ex parte communications
Thank you when I call your name pre-state please stay present and disclose any ex parte communications
Commissioner Duffy present no ex parte
Chair Gaffney present no ex parte
Commissioner Thompson present no ex parte
Commissioner Palmatier present no ex parte
Commissioner Allen present no expertise Commissioner Choi present no expert to
Vice Chair young present no expert a commissioner Sanderson
President no expert. Thank you
All right, wonderful. Thank you everyone and welcome happy to have everyone here
I will start first by the land acknowledgement statement and especially since we're only here once a month. I'm gonna try and do that every time
The commission recognizes that the community we live in was built on the territory of the Hu Chien,
the ancestral and unceded land of the Chien-speaking Ohlone people,
the ancestors and descendants of the sovereign Verona Band of Alameda County.
This land was and continues to be of great importance to all of the Ohlone tribes and descendants of the Verona Band.
As we begin our meeting tonight, we acknowledge and honor the original inhabitants of Berkeley,
the documented 5,000-year history of a vibrant community
at the West Berkeley Shell Mound and the Ohlone people
who continue to reside in East Bay.
We recognize that the Berkeley residents have
and continue to benefit from the use and occupation
of this unseated stolen land
since the cities of Berkeley's incorporation in 1878.
As stewards of the law regulating the city of Berkeley,
it is not only vital that we recognize
the history of this land,
but also recognize that the Ohlone people
are present members of Berkeley
and other East Bay communities today.
The city of Berkeley will continue to build relationships
with the Lisanne tribe and create meaningful actions
that uphold the attentions of the land acknowledgement.
All right, wonderful.
We are gonna go right into public comment
on non-agenda matters.
Once again, this is anything not on the agenda.
One thing I do want to note before we get into this
is that 2204 Dwight Way, which is item F,
has been removed from the agenda.
So that is no longer on that was on the consent calendar,
is no longer, I guess is technically able to talk about it
right now since it's not on the agenda,
but will not have any kind of hearing
whether it's on the consent or action.
Besides that said the things on the calendar
just to go over will be the meeting minutes,
I believe of absence 2145 Grant Street,
to 449 Dwight way to 009 Addison Street and 201 University
Avenue. So anything not about that is the time for now. So
now please raise your hand on zoom and I will recognize the
people in person first and then I will come to zoom. All right.
So Kelly, would you like to start us off? We will do two
minutes.
Yeah, I'll start us off. First off, I'd like our staff here to
fix the Zoom so that I can save the transcript of the meeting
and you can go in and fix that right now.
Normally I can save the transcript of all the meetings,
whether there is a captioner or not.
And if you don't know how to do that,
I can step aside and give you direction.
But I think it's inappropriate that this type of meeting
is not allowing me to save the transcript of the meeting.
So I ask that that be fixed immediately.
So now I'll go to what I had originally planned
to save this evening.
And it was a beautiful day today, was really nice.
I was out in the garden, something I don't usually do.
And I know that your hands are really tied
what you can do with the projects. This state has passed a lot of laws. You can
really only approve the projects. It's very, it's pretty rare that you can do
anything other than that. But even though your hands are tied, I ask you to really
take a close look at those projects and to think about how those projects are
with nature because nature is so important to our overall health and the
health of our community and how we can get more trees around projects because
really if we don't save our trees we're not going to save ourselves. And I can
give you two books to read which are really wonderful. Good Nature by Kathy
Willis and someone on this board told me about the book if they care to identify
themselves. And another book we read in book club is Arbonaut. I never even knew
what an Arbor knot is and an Arbor knot is a person that studies tree canopies
and the ecosystems and canopies and so again just please look at the projects
and think about how we can make them better by incorporating nature into
them thank you very much wonderful thank you so much Kelly and thank you for
bringing the transcript thing to our attention I believe staff is currently
trying to figure that out.
We've done a bit of change of technology
with obviously captioning.
So I'm thinking it's something around that.
But obviously getting things in transcript
is also very important to us.
And we will make sure that happens.
All right, moving along at least on non-agenda.
All right, looks like no one at least in person
is for non-agenda.
It looks like we have a couple on different projects.
Right now is the time to raise your hand online,
but I'm also not seeing anyone online for non agenda.
So I'm going to move right on
because we do have a busy meeting.
He said, I will be doing at least as of right now,
no reordering of the agenda except for the fact
that project F or item F 2204 Dwight Way will be removed.
But now we will move on to the consent calendar,
which is, I will go over the consent calendar
and then we will begin our deliberation.
items on the consent calendar are item A,
which is the meeting minutes from January 22nd, 2026,
item B, which is the leave of absence
for a couple of design review members,
item C, which is 2145 Grant Street,
item D, which is 2449 Dwight Way,
item E, which is 2009 Addison Street,
and on our, oh, nevermind, that's it.
Sorry, other things on our action calendar.
so that's on our consent calendar with item F removed.
Before I open it up to the commissioners,
I do want to speak or want to have staff come up
for one project, that project being 2009 Addison.
We received a supplemental communication from staff
about some change to our staff report.
And so staff planner, Russell Rowe,
will come give us a little brief on that
so it's all in the picture, no problem.
The change resulted from some internal miscommunications, it was not actually a change to the project
or anything.
There are two types of mitigation fees for affordable housing.
There's a commercial one and a residential one and we had accidentally mixed the two
in the report so what was supposed to be applicable is the commercial one because the project
is creating a little bit of new commercial space technically.
So we just fixed that so it all reflected the commercial fees and not the one that is
for residential.
Does that answer the questions or do I need to get more specific?
I'm good now but we'll open it up now to the commission.
does anyone on this project, obviously Russell is here now,
so if you have any questions for him, it'd be great.
So there have been many changes over the years
with that housing use, and so what,
my assumption was the nine hotel rooms
were now subject to the affordable housing mitigation fee,
and you're saying that it's not the hotel rooms,
it's the ground floor, the 1,500 square feet of spades.
So then when you clarify that for me, is there, because it is a hotel use, is there a hotel
tax that's collected from that?
Yeah.
So the first question is, no, it is, it's not based on the ground floor.
It's based on the hotel rooms.
That's the commercial part because hotel is commercial and not residential.
then yes there would be the occupancy tax associated with the hotel use of
those rooms. I share now. Yeah I actually wanted to ask a question about the kind
of floating nature of these hotel units. So it sounds like there won't be units
units. The property will have.
under that use at any given time.
Okay. And just for my benefit, could you help point me
out to which COA that is?
The, for the nine rooms, that would be, sorry about that.
I hadn't thought about that.
Well, you're looking, I'll say, would you need a condition
of approval for that?
Because that was defined as part of the project.
I don't think we've specifically got that in the conditions of approval, which is why
I'm having trouble finding it.
It's in the staff report.
Yeah, you know, I think it probably already is covered by just the nature of the use permit,
but just to be extra safe, I would be in favor of adding that as a COA.
Can you repeat what you're asking for a condition of approval one more time?
I would like to add as a condition of approval, just as a point of clarification, that no more than 9 units floating or otherwise be used for the hotel use.
I think we can do that. Right? Sharon? Yeah. Okay. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Just purely clarify. Sure. Okay. That sounds fine. It sounds like so far, at least so. Commissioners are not feeling objective to that either. So, okay.
I think we're good, at least on that we will obviously,
we're still gonna debate the consent calendar,
so if we have more questions, we will let you know,
but it seems like everyone's good for now.
I will open up to the commissioners first
before I open up to the public.
Said public now, I don't think I have anyone
in green cards talking on consent,
so right now, if you are online,
now is your time to raise your hand about consent.
So do that.
Commissioners, do you all have anything
that you'd like to speak to
before I open up to the public?
Commissioner Allen.
Thank you, I'd like to pull 2145 Grant Street off consent.
I have some questions and concerns around it
meeting the definition of a single family residence
and I'd like to explore that.
Okay, sounds good.
Yes, we will pull 2-1 item C, 2-1-4-5 Grant Street
from consent and give that a full public hearing.
That will go before our one item action calendar
which is 2-0-1 University so far.
We've been in the city of
the property.
We've been in the city of
the property.
We've been in the city of
the property.
Besides Grant Street, which now
we'll get a full public hearing
is anyone have anything else to
say on consent right now?
Yeah, commissioner volunteer.
Just going back to the
conversation we're having
earlier about the no more than
nine units.
I believe that already is a
condition of approval.
condition number one section
or number two.
And so I don't know if we need
to want to read that out loud
to us if it's not too long.
There may be occupied by others in accordance with the following priority.
Number two says, tourist hotel use for no more than nine dwelling units occupying 5,400 square feet of building floor area.
Mr. Young, do you feel comfortable with that?
All right, looks like the current conditions of approval do cover that already.
So we will just vote on that project currently as proposed.
Does anyone have anything else to comment on?
Thank you so much, Commissioner Palmatier, too.
Excellent job, that is what we're all here for.
Um, anyone else have any comments on the consent calendar, um,
before we make a vote because that I don't see anyone recording stopped
recording in progress. Um, and Aaron,
I did see you have something for item F two to zero for Dwight that has been
pulled. There we go. No worries. Of course. Then come on up.
Thank you for clarifying. Indeed. We want to hear what you have to say.
Oh my God. Those are incredibly close in numbers.
Thank you for taking my comment.
My name's Erin Dean.
And I didn't know if anybody here from the project team
from KDA actually wanted to ask them a question.
So actually about bird safe.
Because I was looking through the documents,
and it looks like there's going to be bird safe materials
on it that are in the UV spectrum.
And so I don't know if it's possible.
If the person is here or not.
There is someone in the audience who is here.
So we'll come on up and yes.
And as he's coming up, you know,
yesterday, we have a native plant garden and our birdbath
is right outside the back door.
And this most exquisite yellow warbler was in the birdbath.
It has teeny ways, like two paperclips.
And I sat there, and it was based for a really long time.
And I thought, oh my god, you probably
flew here from Central America, right?
Like they're migrating.
And so I was like, you probably just flew 1,500 miles, 2,000
miles and now you're coming down in my yard to feed and take a bath and move on.
So it's piggybacking on what Kelly said to protect nature and think about
nature every time. So I didn't know. Thank you. The document has a UV on the pages 8 to 11, 12, 13, or 14.
So yeah, come on up to the microphone and speak into that so those who can hear you too.
So I don't know if we should take time with this. I can ask him offline.
Okay, if that's offline is also thank you for bringing that well here. Do you want to say it to at least to the public real fast?
Here come to speak up to the microphone though at least
The project was vested in 2022 which was before the bird safe glass ordinance
After staff clarified that for us. Basically, we are not providing birds bird safe blazing as part of the project
and
Yeah
So I'm not going to start the
meeting, but I'm going to start
the meeting, and I'm going to
start the meeting, and I'm
going to start the meeting, and
I'm going to start the meeting,
and I'm going to start the
meeting, and I'm going to start
the meeting, and I'm going to
start the meeting, and I'm going
to start the meeting, and I'm
going to start the meeting, and
I'm going to start the meeting,
and I'm going to start the
meeting, and I'm going to start
the meeting, and I'm going to
start the meeting, and I'm going
doing well so right now I will make a motion to approve this consent calendar
with removing item number sorry C 2 1 4 5 Grant Street which will get a full
public hearing. That leaves will and the medits the leave of absence and then
that will leave to four four nine Dwight way and two zero zero nine Addison
straights once again item F two two zero four Dwight way is no longer on and
will not get any kind of yeah happy to second all right we have a motion and a
second it doesn't seem like we have any opposition so we will take a roll call
vote for the consent calendar okay motion from chair Gapanee and a second
from Commissioner Allen to prove the consent calendar when I call your name
please say your vote. Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Chair Gaffney? Yes. Commissioner
Thompson? Yes. Commissioner Palmatier? Yes. Commissioner Allen? Yes. Commissioner
Choi? Yes. Vice-chair Young? Yes. Commissioner Sanderson? Yes. All right the
consent calendar passes so for anything that needs a use permit you will have
your use permit 14 days after the notice of decision is mailed, it will be
appealable to council during those 14 days. All right, moving right along because
once again we still got a pretty busy agenda tonight. We are going to start off
with the item we just pulled through consent which will be 2145 Grant Street.
We will start per usual with a staff presentation and then lead into a five
minute applicant presentation. Staff will just get set up now and we will get it
started. So give us a second. Oh we're you're ready. Excellent. All right. Good
evening commissioners. My name is Boshi Fu and I am the staff planner for the
project for you at 2145 Grant Street. Next slide please. The property is
located in a predominantly single family and multifamily residential
neighborhood in the R2 district. As you may all be aware the city recently
past middle housing zoning changes which altered many standards in the zone.
However this project will be reviewed under the previous zoning code prior to
the change at the request of the property owner and applicant. Next slide
please. Here you can see the timeline of the project review history noting that
this project was deemed complete prior to middle housing changes which became
effective on November 1st 2025. The project appears before you tonight on
on the 26th of February.
Here you can see the site plan of the existing building.
This is a 7,171 square feet lot,
currently with two detached single-family buildings.
This project specifically is for the building in the front.
The two-story building in the back will not be altered
and is not within the scope of this project.
The scope of this project includes
raising the average building height
of the front building to 22 feet, 10 inches,
Increasing the number of bedrooms to seven and vertically extending the portion of the building within the front setback. The existing nonconforming law coverage will not be further exacerbated and will increase decrease a bit to forty four point eight percent.
The project will also retroactively legalize an Arbor, which was constructed on top of a fence within the required front and side setbacks.
next slide please. The next three slides will all be providing existing and
proposed elevations for reference which is all in the packet so just slowly I
guess to slide that's the yeah next slide please this is a proposed and
existing left elevation here you can see the photo of the existing street view of
The following permits are required for this project as reflected in the staff report, because of the changes permit housing, the above mentioned permits are no longer required after this change.
The only discretionary permit would be the Arbor edition, which would require a staff level administrative permit.
Next slide, please. Thanks. So, it is Seth's recommendation that the project qualifies for categorical exemption 15 301 under CEQA for existing facilities as the proposed addition will not exceed 10,000 square feet for a project located within an urbanized area.
As noted in a late earlier today response to the Commission,
the proposed expansion of the building footprint is not within 15 feet of the center line of the covert creek,
which would have triggered a creek permit through public works,
but as you can see in the site plan,
it is not within the 15 feet.
This slide presents the specific findings required to recommend approval on this project.
As summarize, no nonconformities are being created,
no nonconformities are being further exacerbated,
and the project proposed average height of the building
will not exceed the maximum allowed in this district.
Next slide.
So because the project is consistent
with the zoning ordinance and the general plan,
staff recommend the zoning adjustment board
find the project is exempt
pursuant to CEQA section 15.301
and approve the use permit.
here for questions, and I believe the applicant is also on Zoom. So any questions directed to them would be.
Sounds good. We will start at least with any questions. So you stay up here for a second. Any questions to staff first, and then we will move on to a 5 minute applicant presentation.
This will not be your only time to ask staff, but at least a good start. Anyone like to know if we're just not move on the applicant. All right. We're just going to move on to the applicant presentation for now.
So applicant, you will have five minutes.
I believe it sounds like you were on Zoom.
So we are going to queue you up.
You should also be able to share your screen, I assume.
So staff will be doing that right now and give you permission on all of this.
So do try. Perfect.
All right. Yeah, do try and keep it to around five minutes.
I'll give you a warning if it's getting too close.
Okay. That's great. Shall I start?
Yes, go for it. Okay, thank you. Thank you so much for tonight and thank you for all the helps and.
You know, thank you for all the helps. My name is and I'm the designer of the project. The project was submitted on, you know, like, November 2025, you know, it's been ongoing and it's been reviewed once by Alison, the previous planner and deemed complete.
And then, on the other hand, as Bush mentioned that, we met all the requirements. We got through all the neighborhood meetings and all the environmental review and historic review for the project.
And respect that and the whole design that we had the whole concept design idea that we had for the project is to respect.
The environmental, like the culvert and the neighborhood character for the project.
And yeah, that's the design and not show.
And also something important that we raised the building,
but we added the kitchenette and the kitchenette.
Uh, does not have any 220 volts outlets.
And it would be like a minute fridge. So that's that also was a note from also on the previous planner and then it's been approved by.
Uh, Bush as well wonderful. Thank you so much for your presentation. Um, we will now move on to any questions for the applicants.
I'm guessing Commissioner Allen has them. Yeah, go for it. Yeah, I have some I have a question around the stairs to the second floor. If you could share with us an image of that and describe the access to the front of the building and then how the stairs to the second floor are operating.
Sure, um, shall I share the screen or you will. Oh, yes, if you're able to share screen, you are totally welcome to.
Okay, if you have. Yeah, there you go. Perfect. You see my screen? Just a second. It's starting. Yes. Now we can.
Okay, the way that it goes.
Currently that we currently, the stairs that we have, it goes into the front setback. So we repurpose and we come up with a whole new solution for this stairs.
uh in the site plan in the you know if you refer to the proposed
site plan in sheets a 101 sorry sheet 102 uh the stairs is here
uh let me turn it out for you the proposed stairs are here so you come
to the side you enter the site and then there's this wall
you open up the door and then you come up the stairs going to the second floor
Then, if you refer to the proposed first floor plan, this is how the store would look like.
So, is there a front, is there a door on the front of the house that you enter under the stairs?
Exactly. This is the door that you enter from under the stairs.
This is the door also, you know, you can enter from the side going to the stairs or going to the house.
To clarify in front of the, um, the door at the base of the stairs on the, I guess, on the right that is a little small opening into the house. Correct. Yes. Right there. That's an opening into the house.
Yes, this is the opening of the house, and that's not any door there, or is that just open to that kind of but interior, exterior stairwell. Sorry. Sorry. Let me go back. Okay. Uh, so this is the opening. Yeah. There's no direct. That's just always going to be open.
Exactly gotcha. Okay. And if you want to see the elevation, the front, this is going to be the front elevation.
This is that door for the front.
And this is the window next to so there's no head height. So, okay. It's so.
Even though the stairs look mildly, they actually are entirely because it looks like kind of from even miss that the wall doesn't continue. The stairs are entirely enclosed in.
And the second floor is the
second floor.
It's the second floor.
That's the second floor.
That's the second floor.
That's the second floor.
That's the second floor.
That's the second floor.
That's the second floor.
That's the second floor.
That's the second floor.
That's the second floor.
That's the projection from the
first floor.
That's where he's not visible.
But if you go to the second floor
and the proposed and you're going
to see the walls and windows.
Okay.
Ask a quirk clarifying.
Yes.
Commissioner.
So if you enter through the door
to the first floor.
That would also allow you to enter
into the stairway that goes up to
the second floor.
that one goes into the first floor correct exactly okay so then it but that that entrance
somewhere there's an entrance to the stairway that goes up to the second floor exactly that's
why the store so you there's no stairs up to the second floor uh there is so you open up a
door in here and this is the stairs uh and then you go up so there are two access to the house
One as if it's a fronting tree,
you go inside of the living room.
The other one is from the side,
you open up the door and then you turn left,
then you can go up the stairs.
Then on the second floor,
there must be a door approximately where the first door is.
Yes, I come up the stairs.
There's this door.
Okay.
Sorry.
Thank you. I got it now.
I have a question.
Yeah. Mr. Choi.
Could you go to the first floor plan again?
So I think the confusion is when you go through
the side door, that's the second floor, first, yeah.
You go through the side door and then there's an opening
straight in front of you going into the living room.
Which makes it look like that front door
is part of that unit, is that right?
I'd like to frame it differently.
So my concern that we can talk about as a commission
is that this doesn't read like a single-family home.
This reads like a duplex.
And if you put a door on the side door,
the internal side door,
then folks could access the second floor,
which has its own full kitchen,
and it would be its own independent unit.
And they could have a duplex in this house
that is allowable.
the staff report it's in the summary table it says there could be three units on the site so I don't
it's um so my so what I want to either get at solutions to having this um operate in a
um in a meaningful way as a single family home right and so that because that's what we are
approving a single family home it needs to um smell and look like a single family home and this
of a side entrance where it's very easy to add an interior door. It gives me pause.
Yeah. And I do. I mean, for me, I feel like obviously there is just that opening that
could add an interior door and separate that. But at least to me, a side door is obviously
one of the most common things up there's side doors in most houses on that ground floor.
So to me, the more the difference of this is the kitchenette that is also being added.
that is to me the biggest difference and what makes that door stand to question is
because of a kitchenette that we are proving to be actually putting in and putting our
vote on to. So to me that's kind of the question of kind of to me as staff is how to define
a kitchen, a full kitchen versus a kitchenette and kind of how that works legally with single
family homes at least it's kind of my thoughts right now and we'll open it back up to everyone else too.
And the public too. And of course the public don't worry we have not forgotten about you guys.
Okay um so this is a single family home it's not a duplex and then uh this the design that the
building has been designed in a way that's being used for um the property owner and her extended
family so they need to be some sort of access and also some sort of privacy right so they can
that have their own living and then the owner have you know they can live independently but
on the other hand the kitchen that we have it doesn't have a full fridge and it's not a full
kitchen and it doesn't have any 240 volt outlets it's just like a cooktop you know like a portable
electric cooktop, so it cannot act as a full kitchen for the first floor. Therefore, my
argument is that this is not a duplex. This is a single-family home.
Okay, thank you so much. And can we open it up to staff too, if staff has anything else to add to that?
Yeah, thank you, commissioners. Yeah, so I can kind of go over how staff reached the recommendation.
So, the zoning code doesn't define kitchenette does only code does define what a full kitchen is.
Heard the zoning code the.
Definition of a full, sorry.
Full kitchen is a habitable space used for preparation of food.
That contains at least a sink a refrigerator of no less than 10 cubic feet and either cooked up in an oven or range. So, based on that definition, this proposed kitchenette does not meet the definition of a full kitchen.
and therefore does not meet the definition of a full unit,
which does require full kitchen.
And that's specifically to the question of the kitchen.
So if any additional questions, I can help.
Thank you.
If I could clarify, that means if you have a kitchen,
ostensibly a kitchenette and all it lacks is a stove top,
then it's not a kitchen and this is not a single,
this is a single family home and not a duplex,
that would be a good idea to
talk about the lack of a
stovetop.
I believe I wrote that down.
Somewhere.
Just because, well, I should
frame it is just because if a
property has a kitchen and a
kitchenette doesn't automatically
make it a duplex, that's not how
the code defines duplex.
Well, whether you call it a
duplex or a single family, you
know, that's divided in half,
parcels, identical units, but it sounds to me like what keeps it from being a kitchen
is the lack of stovetop.
And also the fridge and also not having any appliances that uses 240 or 240 volt outlets.
So there's no other refrigerator, not even an oven, it's not a cooktop, it's just like
portable you know burner and none of the appliances use any 220 or 240 volt electricity.
Okay thank you. Okay does anyone else have any
Commissioner Allen? That's a mighty large pantry in your kitchenette.
This is where I just, it gets to creation of a code enforcement issue and for me I feel
like I look at this plan and there are ways I suppose to remove the pantry and turn that
into a long hall closet that's a cloak hall at the front which would be more in line with
a single-family home, there would be a change in an opening, there would be a deed restriction,
there are certainly elements that could be modified that would get me over the hump
or not. I mean that's, I think there's some, it's just again, this to me, the kitchenette,
There's a large pantry, the exterior stairs,
and I agree with my colleague of,
and I should stop talking
because we need to listen to the public,
that people have front doors and side doors.
So we'll keep working on it,
but I'm just, I'll try.
We're supposed to be listening to the applicant,
and then we're supposed to be talking.
Yeah, no, we'll, yeah, and we said,
well, yeah, do try and keep it more to questions right now.
Obviously, there will be another time for comments,
and I obviously said escape that a little bit.
We don't have much public comment, I think, on this,
But commissioner Troy, oh yeah, of course I have yours.
I'll make sure you speak.
I think you'll be first commissioner Troy.
Did you have anything else before I opened up to the public?
Once again, we'll still have more time.
Just to add to that comment.
I mean, you know, the idea of a side door,
that's not an issue,
but it's really the obvious placement of where it is
and an obvious opening where it is
that can be easily closed.
There's, you can add the door to the window
next to the kitchen.
You can add the door to the laundry room,
happens really much more often than where it is just a nuance just yeah nice
I don't know I have more to speak on that too okay I'll try and so we're gonna
try and keep it to questions right now since comments are coming up we'll table
that for now any more questions for the applicant or staff once again not the
only time okay we are gonna move to public comment now and then we'll come
back to coming to pantry part yes you can okay so you know regarding the pantry
or a size you know you're right it can be changed to the closet but on the other hand
it's extent you know this is designed for the extended family of the owner so it's going to
be you know parents right so you need to save food for them um that's why we decided to have
a bigger pantry rather than making it as a closet. Awesome thank you so much no I appreciate your
answers all those clarifications very much help all right we're going to move on from questions
all of the questions now.
And Kelly come on over, you have
two minutes.
Okay, so you don't need to 20
or 240 to have an induction
cooktop.
So that really is not is kind
of a false argument, you know,
induction induction is the new
thing.
And right now I believe you need
with induction and really make this into pretty much a full kitchen so I
consider that a false argument on this place. It looks and smells more like
either it's going to be run as a duplex or a mini dorm or group living and so it
It seems a little strange to call this for extended family.
That was my initial impression.
This house is in my neighborhood.
I walk by it frequently.
But it just struck me that this is either going to be
an Airbnb or a group living or a mini dorm.
So those are my comments.
It just doesn't look and smell right.
Thank you.
Thank you. I don't believe we have anyone more in person. And so said online now is your time to raise your hands. I don't see anyone online, but I'm going to give a second longer. Yeah, not seeing you online. Oh.
Oh, we have the, okay, I will. Yeah, the applicants. You are allowed to speak. You should be allowed to speak. Okay.
Okay, so regarding the point about the induction or the cooktop, per plan and per what we mentioned on the plan, it's going to be like a smaller, smaller, like a burner.
You need to warm your food anyways, somehow. Right? So that, you know, it's just, you need one burner or it can be a marketplace.
Thank you so much. Good clarifications. I'm not seeing anyone else in the public. So unless
do we have any more questions before I close the public hearing and we start at least two
comments? Okay. I'm going to make. Oh, yep. Commissioner Duffy. I just have a question for
staff. Does this project comply with the current code as proposed? Yeah, everything except for the
defense would be not subject to any discretion.
And then there's a non-conforming setback issue.
The setback is reduced, yeah.
Thank you.
Thank you.
No, very also very good clarification.
All right, then I'm going to make a motion
to close the public hearing portion.
Do I have a second?
Someone second.
I'll second.
Thank you.
All right, we'll do a voice vote.
Everyone, everyone in favor say yes.
Yes?
Yes.
Thank you.
Everyone opposed, say no.
OK, perfect.
the public hearing is closed on that. All right. We will now move to Commissioner comment, which I know we have several. So does anyone want to start us off? Yeah, Mr Duffy. I'd be happy to as one of the architects on the on the board here. I just would like to acknowledge that. Even though.
acknowledge that even though there is a conforming,
there is a large regular kitchen,
and then that there is also a conforming smaller kitchen,
and even though somebody might, in the future,
do something that is illegal,
I don't believe I have the ability
to make judgment on that tonight.
That's true for many of our decisions,
including, let's say, the sound ordinance or other things,
that people might just break the law.
And so in the case, in this case,
if somebody were to not be a single family home,
well, that's for them to figure out
and for enforcement to deal with.
I grew up in numerous multi-generational homes in Berkeley
that actually a couple actually looked like this.
And I also think that I would support
multi-generational living and would not support
anybody breaking the law if you've got a use permit
that is single family.
Thank you commissioner Duffy and that is very well said and exactly how I was feeling where we cannot judge what indeed might assume who might be moving in and just take it for what it is now and it's all seems legal to me and indeed to clarify as well.
If they were to make it a duplex, they would have to go through that permit process and if they did not then that would be done illegally.
But I believe that is not what we're talking about now but to clarify yes, if they were to make it a duplex, wanting to wall that off, that's its own permit process.
And they are welcome to do so if they please, but that is not what we're doing here.
That being said, love to hear from our fellow commissioners.
Yeah, Commissioner Sanderson.
Years ago, if anything looked or smelled like a second unit, we would have fought hard and had it created a second unit.
Those were the days when it was hard to create a unit and it was hard to remove a unit.
I, God bless Berkeley Zoning, but that's changed now.
And the definition of kitchen has relaxed.
I understand this situation.
I lived in a house that was like this.
My mother lived in a small unit on the bottom,
and she had a kitchenette, which was a microwave,
a refrigerator, a sink.
And I think that was all.
And a little bit of counter.
We're now converting that space into an ADU,
but we wanted a real kitchen in our ADU
that my husband and I are going to move into.
So I think this concern about whether it's
a unit or not a unit, I think it's not the primary concern
anymore.
And if it's usable space and there's a large extended family,
then it makes a lot of sense.
We've had kitchenette type things put into large,
large buildings where they had an area
they wanted to do cooking for guests, you know,
and they put in a second kitchen
and we didn't make that be a two-unit property.
So I think that I understand the concern about it,
but I think at this point it's okay
because we have to accommodate extended families.
And it's not really,
I'm trying to think why it wouldn't matter
if it was or wasn't a unit.
I'm not sure why it would matter.
Rent control would have,
it would be subject to rent control if it was two units.
So, and that's a biggie for a lot of people.
But I don't want to get entangled in that kind of fight
over how people use their property.
So, you know, I'm okay with this.
Thank you.
Does anyone else have anything?
Commissioner Allen, would you like to speak on this?
So I'm gonna, I have a different point to make.
And my other, my different point is about the Arbor,
which is an existing non-conforming piece over the fence.
And I'm just like the board of no over here.
I don't think the findings can be made for the arbor,
the fence six feet and looking down the block,
It is not the findings about light and air, which I don't have any concerns about, but it's also the character and having a tall fence element is not in the character of this neighborhood.
If you look at the 19 properties at front grants on this block, there is 1 solid fence and there's 1 wall. That's well beyond the setback.
I see Berkeley and certainly this neighborhood
and this block as welcoming, friendly, open.
I don't see a reason to approve this fence height
and certainly not a reason because it's already there.
So if others make a motion to approve the project,
I would like us to talk about approval
but not the approval for the AUP fence.
I have a question.
I'm looking at what I think is a picture
of the front of the existing house.
And I can see the house
and the fence in front of the house is not higher
than six feet.
And then there's over what appears to be a driveway.
And the harbor goes from outside the edge of the house
to over the driveway.
So, and there's openings in the gate.
So if it's over driveway and it's not blocking a house,
it's not blocking the view of the house.
So the question, the findings aren't,
does this block the view of the house?
Okay, do you remember the findings?
The findings are, I think the neighborhood finding
can't be, I'm assuming that there's a reason
that we have a U.P. for something over six feet,
and that reflects the character of the neighborhood.
I don't see this as, this is literally the only one
on the block, so I don't see it as a.
No, I have a quick comment on that.
I mean, it is, I mean, this house, this property,
so the single-family property is very close,
it's only a block or so away from university,
a block and a half, and same with MLK.
Also, as I said, I'm also looking at the front elevation
of this fence. And one kind of interesting thing about the existing fence is it does
have its own little planter box, which indeed is that allows people to be able to step over
it even easier. I mean, I said there's, you know, I don't know, I do feel in that kind
of situation, I guess, that since it is already built, I guess that's the kind of argument
is just because it's already built, does that indeed mean it shouldn't be? But I said even
though the height is taller than most, it is broken up. And also, I understand maybe
be able to hop over due to that little kind of lower planter box and it is very close to two main streets. And if, you know, I kind of understand meeting slightly taller fence, maybe in that kind of area, um, that's my.
Perspective, but I'd love to hear everyone else's as well, this is literally just the Google maps.
Does anyone else have anything to say? We'd love to hear from other people regarding the fence.
Commissioner Allen like I'm done but no one is jumping in so I like I will make I will make a motion to approve the project
with
But not approve the AUP for the fence element and with one condition of approval that I'm hoping Commissioner Choi will help me
write which is to
Move the location of the side door
Outside of the stairwell
Okay, I mean I've given you guys something to react to I
Person so I guess I I'll have I'll speak to two things on that what so if we didn't approve the fence as is
And are we talking about the whole fence or just the top part? It's just
Just the top just it's just that little interesting. Okay, just that part. Okay. Sorry
I then disregard my other comments and interesting. Okay
That is still I'm a little more neutral on the fence and
Uh, regarding the side door, I don't know if I could support that because for me I don't, I don't feel like we can dictate where they put their side door, even if it looks like they could wall it off. I mean, they could do a lot of things illegally inside a building.
We could do, they could do a lot of things without us knowing in general. So just to say, oh, just because there's a little opening there and they could to me does not justify moving forcing them to move the door.
So for me, I can't support a motion that does have that.
I'm still undecided on the top of the fence thing.
So Commissioner Thompson, yeah.
So if we don't approve the fence, what happens to it?
I think they just have to remove that top.
It's just that element.
It's just that element over six feet, it gets removed.
It's just over the door.
It's about four feet.
It's not, it said it's not removing the whole fence
that I was wrong when I was talking about the whole fence.
it's just the little.
Just the archival.
Yeah.
Let's be clear, they're raising 1,600 square foot house.
So I think they'll have the equipment on site
to take care of that.
And it's not, yeah, and it's not,
that being said, I'm so once again,
can you say your argument one more time,
just for clarity on why to remove
or why you think legally that shouldn't,
Dan, that's not supported.
So the city of Berkeley, the fence ordinance
is there's a maximum height of six feet.
And if you want to go over six feet,
you need an AUP.
And the findings for the AUP are general findings
of air, light, and character.
And my feeling, or my research on this block shows
that it is, there are no other fences over six feet,
and there's actually only one fence and one wall
of the 19 properties on the block,
so it is out of character.
All right, now, thank you for clarifying that.
I will, and then I will open it up.
Sorry for everyone for talking a lot during this one.
And actually I do live, I live in this neighborhood.
I'm over 500 feet away.
I'm allowed to be here, but I do know that very well.
And even though, yes, we can maybe offense over six feet
is out of character, but tonight I would argue
since it's not a full fence, to me, it's a,
it's a, it's a quick cut.
It's a Berkeley neighborhood that does have quirky features
that indeed to me, that's just, it is a decorative feature.
It's not the entire fence.
So I wouldn't argue it's, it is that into me.
yes even though it's a little different from the neighborhood,
that is something I like about Berkeley neighborhoods
in general is that there are moments of difference.
And to me it's not, if it was the full fence line,
I might have a different opinion,
but since it is to me just kind of a bit of accent,
and if anything now that the building is getting
a lot bigger, I think actually might work
with the scale of the larger building, better.
So I'm still a little neutral on how I'm gonna vote on that,
but that's at least my argument so far.
Commissioner Thompson first just because he raised his hand
first and then Commissioner Duffy.
OK, just a quick question.
The image that I see on Google Maps has a 2020 date on it.
And the image that we saw in the presentation
looked like it was more recent, and it had some greenery on it.
Is that the case now?
Does it have planting on top of the archway now?
Yeah, the vegetation is currently there.
But the same structure that at least hopefully
is on Google Maps as well, the structure hasn't changed at all.
I can't see it, so that's OK.
I don't know what to do.
It's just the greenery going
around it, seemingly.
So sorry, we're looking at the
Google Maps.
OK, no, that's fair.
It just is a wooden anyways.
OK, ignore that question.
We'll move on to Commissioner
Duffy for now.
No, sorry, sorry.
Commissioner Thompson, are you
done?
Yeah, that's it.
I'm just I'm just I'm just
I'm going to have my grand now
with the green and the support
of it.
So thank you.
Wonderful.
Thank you so much, Mr.
You can see that exactly.
But also, this is not an 8-foot fence
that blocks light and air.
This is an 8-foot portion of a gateway,
which actually is a typology
that you might find in design guidelines
and other pro-design things,
even if it's not within the block.
So the idea that it's like a gateway and it's open air,
and it's got plants on it,
feels very different than a 8-foot solid fence
that is shading important things.
So that weighs into my considerations a little bit
on with regard to the Arbor.
I would just like to also note there's no second
on the current motion, so I would like to make a motion
to approve as proposed, and anyone could second that,
and then we could have a procedural exercise.
I will happily second that, so.
All right, so we have a motion to second on one,
and we have one motion on first,
but also we're still open to discussion on anything,
So, someone's gotta say something.
Well, if there's a second, then we can only discuss
the motion that has been made for now.
Thank you for clarifying that.
I kinda forget these little procedural things.
So, okay, we are talking about the motion
to approve the project as proposed.
That's the one we are on right now.
Does anyone have Commissioner Thompson?
Just one more question.
Of course.
There was concern over the use of it.
Does the code right now make it clear
that as a single-family home,
this property would not be able to be used as a duplex
or an Airbnb or anything like that?
Is that like explicit?
Yes. Okay.
At least it's cannot be a duplex.
I said I'm not as sure for short-term rentals
by doing that commission.
They can rent rooms.
Any single-family home can rent rooms.
But that's, yeah.
But it said if it were to,
if they wanted to make it a duplex,
that is a whole other process that they will have to apply
through the city for.
And any renter could go to the rent board and say,
I've been offered a unit in the bottom floor of a building.
And I would like to let the rent board know about that.
And then you can check and see if it's legal.
Yeah, Vice Chair Yung.
Just to answer your question, something they could do,
if I was a landlord and I was building this,
be like low key I could like close the hole on the side door and make it a do
but that's violating code so they couldn't do that yeah once again anyone
could do anything illegal inside their unit without people knowing and we
cannot we have to just go on faith on what is in our packet once again that is
my stance we are still talking about the motion as yeah Commissioner Palmatier so
because we're talking about Commissioner Duffy's motion I just want to
that, you know, regardless of I think how any of us vote when a property owner
wants to install a sort of element on their property such as an arbor it is
best to get an AUP from the beginning and not have it come in as a non
conforming use. Thank you. That is wonderful clarity. I mean this is kind of
what we're talking about in general. Always get things permitted legally to
at first. It's always going to be way worse for you in the end if you don't do
it, and I as someone who works a lot on helping things be legalized, that indeed
we're done illegally. So please do it. Anyone else have any comments before we
take a roll call motion? A roll call vote, not motion. Roll call. I seconded. Yeah. I
want to call a question. Yeah, of course. Did you have a question? Sorry. I wanted to call a question that we vote. Oh, perfect. We're ready to vote.
Alright, roll call vote.
Great, so we have a motion by Mr. Duffy and a second
by Chair Gaffney to approve the project as proposed.
And when I call your name, please state your vote.
Mr. Duffy?
Before I vote, I just do wanna say procedurally,
you can also, at this time I believe,
somebody could propose an alternate motion.
And if that alternate motion, then we take a vote on that.
And if that alternate motion holds,
then we don't have to vote on this one, is that correct?
I believe, well, having done that in the past,
and has witnessed it over the past five years,
if there's a motion on the floor that has been seconded,
somebody may at any time say I propose an alternate motion,
and that alternate motion can be then voted upon,
or if it's seconded, then it can be voted upon.
that's a good question. So I'm a
good question. But I'm not a
good question. But I'm a good
question. But I'm a good question.
But I'm a good question. But I'm
a more friendly amendment kind of
situation to order that. Yeah,
we have multiple options that once
again, this is not we want to make
sure everyone's voice is heard. So
at any point, let me know. We will
continue on so far at least with
the show. Yes. Sorry.
Chair Gaffney. Yes. Commissioner
we are on the motion.
Commissioner Choi.
Yes.
Vice chair Young.
Yes.
Commissioner Sanderson.
Yes.
Okay, wonderful.
The motion passes, and you will have your use permit 14 days
after the notice of decision is mailed,
but it is appealable to council during that time.
All right.
Thank you all.
It was a very interesting discussion,
and I just appreciate you all.
And we're about to have another very interesting project,
I'll now be moving on to and thank you everyone.
Thank you to the staff and applicants
for answering all of our questions
and everyone else for their patience.
We appreciate you all.
All right, moving right on.
I know we have plenty of people here for this.
201 University Avenue.
So you will start off with,
I guess is there a city staff and an applicant presentations?
So we have Liza McNulty from the Parks Rex Hill
and will be giving the presentation for the project.
Okay, so will that be a staff presentation and that,
or since it's kind of done by the city,
it's all kind of in one?
It will just be.
Perfect, okay, sounds good, then we'll be, take her away.
We've had no time limit, this is a project
we indeed do wanna hear all about,
but we will also have a chance to ask you questions.
Great, thank you, I'm just gonna take a moment here
to share my screen.
Okay, wonderful.
Thank you.
My name is Liza McNulty.
I am the Capital Improvement Program Manager
for the Berkeley Parks Recreation
and Waterfront Department.
Christina Erickson, the Deputy Director
for our department is here with me.
And of course, Syngay Salike, the Senior Planner.
So my goal is to keep this presentation fairly brief,
so I'm not going to read slides out loud to you.
But I do wanna do my best to provide an overview
of the scope and context of the proposed use,
the extensive public outreach that has been conducted
for the project, and how this use permit fits
into the overall project schedule.
The Berkeley Pier is 100 years old this year.
It was originally constructed
to provide ferry transportation for vehicles
from Berkeley to San Francisco,
but has operated as a recreational pier
for the past 90 years.
It was closed in 2015 due to structural deterioration
and the city has been working since its closure
to reopen the pier.
The use permit before you today
is to establish a new use of transportation
to authorize a reconstructed pier
to once again be used for public ferry service.
The entirety of the Berkeley waterfront
is zoned as an unclassified district.
Berkeley Municipal Code establishes
that any use not prohibited by law
is allowed in the U District,
but that a use permit is required to establish any use.
Berkeley Municipal Code also provides specific procedures
for a use permit within an unclassified district
that are unique compared to use permits
in other zoning districts.
Specifically, the use permit application
is required to first go before the Planning Commission.
That was completed last month,
and the Planning Commission voted unanimously
in favor of issuing the use permit.
The other unique aspect in the U District
is that the use permit is not effective
until after action by City Council.
So tonight is not the last step for this use permit.
It cannot be issued unless Council also takes action.
Because of this, the ZAB decision may not be appealed
because review by Council is required no matter what.
The required findings for approval of the use permit
are the same as they are in any other district.
The proposed new use is to establish
public electric ferry service at the Berkeley Pier.
The scope of the Berkeley Pier Ferry Project as a whole
includes repair or replacement
of a number of existing facilities,
including roads, pathways, parking lots,
and the pier itself.
But all of that scope supports existing uses
and is not subject to a use permit.
The new infrastructure that is required
the transportation use is limited to the breakwater and ferry landing itself, and so that's what we'll
be focused on tonight. There are no buildings associated with the new use. The infrastructure
required for ferry service includes a new breakwater, which is necessary to create calm
water for safe docking and passenger loading, a gate and platform, which is the boundary between
the public pier and the ferry boarding facilities, a gangway, which connects the fixed platform to
the floating universal charging float. This float is what the ferry docks to while charging
and connects passengers from the gangway to the vessel. This infrastructure is designed by
coastal and electrical engineers in collaboration with San Francisco Bay Ferry. Given the technical
nature of this infrastructure, planning staff have determined that design review will occur by staff.
Ferry service would be provided by San Francisco Bay Ferry also known as the Water Emergency Transportation Agency, or WIDA.
The service details that you see here are from the WIDA Berkeley Business Plan.
This is a living document that will be updated regularly and details of the service are subject to change.
In summary, the 25 minute ride to San Francisco will be focused on the morning and evening commute hours during the week and
It takes a couple of hours to
operate on a regular, roughly
one hour schedule during the
weekends.
Special event service and long
term expansion to Larkspur are
both considered in the plan.
We do have some folks, some
staff from Weta here tonight,
so if there are any detailed
questions about the service,
we're happy to have them answer
those.
The infrastructure for ferry
service is designed to meet
essential facility criteria.
transportation services, the new use also provides a new post-disaster emergency
response resource and long-term transportation resilience. This image shows a rendering of
the gate that creates the entrance from the Berkeley Pier to the Ferry facilities. And this
next image is from the perspective of the water, so imagine you're sort of floating in the water,
and you can see through the pier to that electrical charging float that again
floats in the water on piles and then in the background on the back left there
you can see the gangway. Establishing ferry service at the Berkeley Pier is
consistent with multiple city planning documents including the general plan,
climate action plan, and local hazard mitigation plans. The Berkeley Marina
master plan is limited to capital improvements to support existing uses
and does not identify any new uses at the Berkeley Waterfront.
The City's conducted extensive public outreach for this project beginning in 2021 with the feasibility phase of the project
and continuing through the current design and permitting phase.
The outreach efforts include both engaging with our existing waterfront users and stakeholders through in-person surveys,
focus groups and meetings, and reaching out to community groups and organizations that are currently underrepresented at the Berkeley Waterfront.
In addition to meetings and presentations with community groups, we've also had large community-wide meetings and workshops, conducted outreach at community events, and presented to external agencies and various city commissions.
The primary concern we've heard from our existing waterfront users is that ferry riders will impact their ability to find parking for recreation visits.
The city conducted a comprehensive parking and transportation demand management study, which was provided as part of the package for this meeting.
based on the findings of this study, the city has developed a preliminary parking management plan that accommodates all of our waterfront visitors, including new ferry riders.
In summary, the city proposes to allow full day paid parking at a limited number of spaces at seawall and skates parking lots.
The data clearly demonstrates that both of these parking lots have the capacity for shared use, even during peak visitation periods.
Free full day parking will be allowed on Marina Boulevard.
location is about a half mile away from the ferry terminal which is why it's
incentivized by being free. Full day parking by ferry riders will be
prohibited in all parking lots except for these three through a combination
of time limits and permit programs. The city is further developing and
expanding this parking management plan with ongoing input from the public and
other waterfront stakeholders. We acknowledge that this use permit is
coming to ZAB earlier in the process than you are perhaps used to seeing and
and we wanted to explain why that is.
The city will publish a draft environmental impact report
for the project and we expect City Council
to take action on that EIR in late summer
or early fall of this year.
Council is the sole decision making body
for CEQA compliance for this project
and there is no scenario where ZAB would be taking action
on CEQA determination.
As I discussed earlier,
because we're in the unclassified district,
If ZAB approves the use permit tonight,
that permit is not effective until council also takes action
to affirm the use permit.
Council will only consider the use permit
either concurrent with or after CEQA determination.
Because this project includes construction
in San Francisco Bay, it is subject to a long list
of local, state, and federal permits,
some of which have very long lead times
on the order of nine to 12 months.
Because of these long timelines,
we need to start the process of applying for these permits
as soon as possible.
Just like the use permit,
none of these permits would actually be issued
by any agency prior to council action
on the CEQA document.
The approach of applying for negotiating
and drafting permits for both building
and environmental permits that are then held
for issuance pending CEQA action is typical
for large projects that involve multiple jurisdictions.
Establishing transportation as an allowable use
is fundamental to this project.
And because this use permit is not effective
until after council action, city staff has prioritized
bringing it to ZAB
prior to submitting other permit applications.
Staff recommends that ZAB approve the use permit
subject to the findings and conditions,
which include subsequent council approval
pursuant to Berkeley Municipal Code.
And with that, I'm happy to take any questions.
All right, thank you so much.
And I bet there will be plenty of questions.
So who wants to start us off
on this very cool project?
Commissioner Sanderson.
Well, the renderings are beautiful,
but I am not convinced on the CEQA issue.
The CEQA document has a purpose of providing us input
on the impacts of the project on a variety of things.
And it's hard for me to figure out what is the use,
What is the reason we would even adopt a use permit
if we don't have a CEQA document for consideration?
I mean, I understand your strategy
of trying to keep things moving.
I appreciate that.
But I guess one thing is not having the CEQA document
prior to our action or else maybe we just punt and don't act
and let the council worry about it,
which I suppose we could do.
The other issue is that I don't fully understand the parking study when it mentions all these
other different, maybe you can go back to the slide that had the different parking lots on it.
And okay, so what the study I think was trying to say is that the parking lots that have those
X's on them are, you would not, you don't expect to have people parking there who are using the
That's that's correct, okay.
Can you just give me a brief overview of why you believe these two parking lots are sufficient?
Absolutely, so WEDA has within the business plan they have ridership projections so they
project how many folks will ride the ferry essentially.
On weekdays, weekends and they look at it on day one all the way out to 10 years after
operation. We then take those numbers and we run them through what's called a
mode analysis. So there we have the transportation engineers say okay we
think this many will bike this many will bus etc. That gives us then a number of
cars that we have to handle. That number of cars is a range from 318 to 351
during weekdays. The reason why that's a range is because when we were preparing
the transportation demand management study,
we weren't prepared to commit to paid parking.
Paid parking reduces the number of cars.
So that's why you see a range there.
So with the implementation of paid parking,
we expect to see on the order of 318, 320 cars.
And so that's why we're then able to say,
okay, now we look at the data of how much parking
is available in these parking lots
and are able to conclude that there is sufficient space
available in these parking lots.
Okay, and so your conclusion is that the other parking lots
are not gonna be burdened with additional parking
from ferry users.
Well, we will need to develop and implement measures
to ensure that ferry riders do not park
in those parking lots, and that will be a combination
of time limits, permits, and then of course enforcement.
Okay, thank you.
All right, one question to piggyback on that then.
And so for regarding at least the use permit that we are currently discussing, the parking
management condition, that would be deferred elsewhere.
We're not actually voting tonight or anything on how, as you said, that will actually be
enforced.
Correct.
Okay.
My other question, follow-up question to that is regarding those restrictions, I know you
kind of said you're obviously still working through those and you did say there was opportunity
for public engagement in the future for that, where, how would people hear about that if
they did want to comment on kind of how they thought think that could be. Yeah great question.
We will be presenting that at Parks, Recreation and Waterfront Commission meetings. We'll
also conduct focus group meetings. We have a lot of different existing stakeholders.
And also it's really important for us to engage with some of our leaseholders and make sure
that our plan works for them and their staff. So we'll be kind of doing a multi-pronged
outreach on that. And that document will remain a living document. You know once
that very is up and operational we'll have to see how you know our parking
measures are working and adjust them. That kind of living adjustment of
parking measures is something we are constantly doing at the waterfront
currently. Okay wonderful. So in order to probably stay up if people wanted to to
like to put yourself on the Parks and Waterfront newsletter or something like
just go to the website there and absolutely and and all the meetings are
noticed and agendas wonderful okay so yeah so obviously no we haven't we're
still gonna go to members of the public don't worry we have not forgotten about
you but just some good information open up to other commissioners first
commissioner Allen yeah I have two questions the first one is how does this
relate or not relate to the waterfront master plan great question I'm gonna ask
Christina to update that she was the manager of the project manager of that
effort. Thank you for the question. Good evening everybody. The waterfront
specific plan was a process that we started back in 2019 and the council
funded the development of this project allocated funding. We got much of the
way through the process. We have a draft specific plan if anybody is interested
it's on the city's website you can just put that into the waterfront specific
plan into the city's search engine. The status of that project is that back in November of
2024 we went to council and reviewed the status of the plan. The feedback we got from council was
we'd like you to proceed with a couple of changes. So in the specific plan, as you'll see on the
website right now, Cesar Chavez Park is largely untouched. And the feedback we got from the
Council was, we'd like to see more, you know, we'd like to see more exploration
of what could be done here. And they said, rather than use your remaining
funding to complete the EIR, we want you to use your remaining funding to do an
exploration of what can happen at Cesar Chavez Park. In addition, the feedback we
got was, we'd like you to explore parking availability of the waterfront and the
study that you just heard Liza described was the response to that request. The
spring then proceeded and there were a number of urgent emergency capital needs
that emerged including the failure of the dock at the South Sailing Basin if
you've been down to the marina near Cal Sailing and Cal Adventures. That east
dock where many people windsurf or swim, that failed. There were some pilings that
failed, had to be emergency repaired.
There was a lot of public interest
in getting that work done.
And so that remaining funding,
which was only about $200,000 in that project
for the waterfront specific plan was repurposed.
The second thing that kind of happened
that drove that decision is Cesar Chavez Park,
as you may have seen from the various reports in the news,
had a number of environmental tests done
that resulted in changes to, and so for example,
we had a Cesar Chavez pathway project
that was fully ready for construction,
grant fund that breaks on that entirely
because the new rules environmentally were
that while they're sort of doing more environmental testing,
we cannot do any ground disturbance of any kind.
And so we had hoped to go in and replace that pathway.
All of that had to be completely changed
because of these new restrictions that came down.
So that's a long response to your question.
but the status of the project is that it is unfunded
at this point.
And so it is in its existing form.
We have that draft document from November of 2024,
but we don't have funding identified
to do those remaining pieces,
which are, figure out a sort of vision
for Cesar Chavez Park and conduct an EIR
to complete the plan.
Thank you.
My second question is very different.
If you would go back to the slide that had the list
of the other agencies that will be, that require permits,
how many of those folks use our future adopted EIR
for their permits?
Like what's the interaction between BCDC, State Lands,
Army Corps, all those folks and the work that
is being done for the EIR?
Yes, and I do want to caveat,
This is not necessarily a complete list.
We're still working on building out it could get longer.
What is typical is that all of these agencies will take a look at the draft EIR.
They'll make comments on it.
We will turn in our permit applications to them, go through a back and
forth, there's kind of negotiation, so to speak, that happened with that permit.
There's also some of these agencies do independent biological assessments or
studies as part of their permitting process.
The Corps, Army Corps of Engineers,
actually triggers a NEPA process, a national EPA process,
which will follow its own path.
And then what is typical is you'll get to a point
with these agencies where they will say,
okay, we're ready to go.
We have your draft permit ready.
We've gone back and forth.
We all agree to the language there,
but we will not issue it until we receive
the notice of determination of your
secret completion from you and that is true of every single one of these none
of them will actually hand us a permit until they first receive the notice of
determination on sequel so I understand that but I don't but my and I can be
wrong but my assumption is that there is additional work that say the encore will
do after the EIR is certified so the EIR isn't necessarily the long pole in the
there are technical studies that these other folks will undertake prior to issuing, they're
not going to do everything and then you're going to certify the EIR and then they're
going to go great here's your permit. Some of them are you know who the critical path
runs through which of these permitting agencies is not something we can predict in advance. We
We don't know what NEPA process the core will determine is necessary here.
They have different standards, and they may determine that a more straightforward sort
of like the equivalent of a CADEX is something that they can do here.
We won't know that until we turn in the permit application.
That's part of that long lead time.
So it is possible that the critical path will jump from CEQA to one of these permitting
agencies.
That's one of our goals of coming early to ZAB is to sort of try to clear as many things
off the critical path as we can.
All right.
Thank you.
I have one question to kind of piggyback on that as well because the CEQA issue is definitely
something I'm still kind of figuring out my thoughts and feelings.
I do understand the logic of it or kind of where you guys are coming from there.
My question is what happens if the draft EIR does identify significant impacts and then
The only thing left is council.
Does it have to come back to here?
How does that work?
Yeah.
So an EIR can have significant and unavoidable impacts,
and council will weigh that in their determination
of whether or not to proceed with the EIR.
So essentially, an EIR can...
In order to adopt an EIR,
they have to create their findings document,
and that findings document can conclude
that there are overriding considerations
such that they are willing to accept significant
and unavoidable environmental impacts.
If ZAB improves the permit tonight
and if council adopts the EIR,
whether it has significant unavoidable impacts or not,
this would not come back to ZAB.
Part of that adoption of any EIR
is adoption of a mitigation monitoring
and reporting program, MMRP.
And what is included in the conditions
of this permit in front of you is, of course,
implementation of any mitigation monitoring
and reporting requirements adopted by the council.
Okay, wonderful.
I think that's great to clarify since, indeed,
I know people in the public and us included.
Obviously, I wanna make sure that any of those issues
that do arise are indeed talked about
because indeed we usually get an opportunity
to be able to discuss
and it's not that we don't trust the council.
We just wanna be able to give them
as much feedback as possible and make their jobs easier.
So once we're not able to do that this time,
I know we wanna make sure that everyone is comfortable
with that when it gets to council.
That being said, who else has questions?
Commissioner Sanderson.
So I'm not yet convinced
that the use permit is on the critical path.
And when I look at your schedule,
I don't know where on that schedule you would,
the permitting environmental analysis should be completed
by the beginning of middle of 2026.
And then it goes to other permitting.
So there's permits that are gonna need to be issued
after the environmental impact report is certified.
So I don't understand why
We can't do the use permit approval after the EIR is done.
It makes no sense to me.
It makes, to me, it makes the use permit kind of, you know, not necessary.
There's no function.
If we don't have, how are we going to make our findings under a use permit
that without the EIR to depend on?
Okay so if you I don't understand why we're on the critical path and why we can't wait until the second half of 2026 to issue the
use permit. So I didn't mean to say and I apologize if I misstated but the use we have not determined that the use permit in and of itself is on the critical path.
What is true is that establishing transportation as an allowable use is fundamental to the overall project.
And because of that kind of fundamental aspect of this project, we prioritized coming to ZAB before preparing other permit applications.
But this is to establish transportation as a legal use.
As an allowable use.
But isn't it based on the way the zoning reads for the U
District, that unless it's prohibited, it's allowed?
So why aren't those two different votes?
I mean, I understand if we approve this project,
then indirectly we are approving transportation use
on the property.
But it's not necessary to approve a project in order
for us to approve a use.
So we are asked, what the use permit is,
is to establish transportation as an allowable use, period.
That is what?
It's not approving the project?
No, it is establishing an allowable use, period.
Nothing to do with the project.
Correct.
The project as a whole is all improved.
If we take out the transportation element,
what is left are all existing uses
that are not subject to a use permit.
And so we wouldn't be here tonight
if we were not proposing adding a transportation use.
So that seems to narrow our scope significantly.
Commissioner Allen, I'll let you speak on that.
That's not what the staff report says,
even if you just read the first paragraph,
seeking approval to establish a transportation
via public ferry service as allowable use.
Constructed elements include
the new universal charging floating, the ferry gate,
the landing, and the brake water.
So that's correct.
So it's all that we, the way, I would love it
if the staff report said we're just looking
for a use permit for a transportation use,
but the way that I've read the staff report
is that it includes the physical elements of the ferry.
That's because the findings for the use permit
to establish the new use,
specifically section 23406040 say that you have to consider
when establishing a new use structures or additions
that accommodate that use.
And so that is why we have to describe the structures
that accommodate the use that is written
into the Berkeley Municipal Code.
So that's why we can't talk about the use
without acknowledging that in order to implement that use
there is some structure that has to be built
and we have to acknowledge that.
But we're not talking about the project as a whole,
that's why we're only limited to those structures
that are specific to the new use.
Yeah Vice Chair Young.
I have thoughts on the sequencing topic
and the role and timing of the EIR.
But I'll get to that during commissioner statements.
I actually wanted to ask a question,
I think that's a good question.
we do have to have that
conversation in place so we
can make sure we don't have
to move on to efforts or
coordination that might be
ongoing with a C transit. And
if there's any possibility that
we can have those time tables
lined up because that would be
great and it would eliminate
the number of required parking
spaces. Thank you. Chad Mason
capital planning manager with
San Francisco Bay Ferry. I
could say that that's a
challenge. We do have a great
relationship with a C transit
to sync up the bus schedule with the ferry schedule
as close as possible.
But right now, without actually having a schedule
to work with, that's hard to do.
But there would definitely be a coordination step.
We do it at all of our terminals as much as we can.
But it is a challenge to get everything to match up,
but we do the best we can with our partners.
All right, thank you.
And I think that's just to clarify.
So again, since we're talking about what our scope is here
at the Zabamut, that is any of those kind of specific
services that's we're not technically good question by we're not voting on any of that that is obviously still subject to
for being farther along in the process obviously so great to talk about but just want to make sure we're still
Very clear on scope before we start our comments
Does anyone have any more questions enough to be your last time, but we're at least gonna open up to the public
But I think we've given public a lot of good things to go on. Okay, then all you guys can stand by
We're going to do some public comment real fast then we will start with in person and then we'll move to online. So online. Now is the time to raise your hands. If you have public comment, we will give everyone 2 minutes each and we said, we'll start in person and we're going to start with Jim McGrath come on up.
you will have your two minutes.
I will warn you if it's getting, if you're over,
but do try and keep it to two minutes.
But don't worry, I don't have too many people.
So wait, wait till you're up to the microphone
and make sure you're speaking
so everyone on Zoom can hear you.
Is that on?
Yep, you're perfect.
So Ron Adler told me, hand him be this
and said give me his time.
So I'd like Ron Adler's time if I could.
Okay, perfect, I do see Ron Adler on here.
So Ron, Elder, if you want to lower your hand,
So we'll put you up for you can restart.
Sorry, I didn't say Jim's,
start research Jim's time and give him four minutes.
Perfect.
All right, you have four minutes.
So what I wanted to point, I wanted to point out,
I want to talk about first, should you,
should you move on this tonight?
And then I want to talk about parking.
So I don't, I think Commissioner Sanderson
has it exactly correct.
After I sent you an email, which you have before me,
I came across the ordinance that the council adopted
to guide fair practices.
And because I bumped my head, I can't get it really quickly.
But what it says is the organizations such as
the Zoning Advisory Board should consider these things
only after a thorough review of all viewpoints.
Now, I don't believe that you've seen
any of the comment letters that have been raised
on the issues involved with the claim
that the city has about parking study.
They don't have an adequate baseline.
They didn't measure the people
that are coming at the peak time.
They didn't measure any.
So they have, as I said in my email, no data.
So why does that matter?
Well, we're talking about 915 people
coming to 250 parking spaces.
It doesn't work.
Right now, you've got maybe 6%, 7% of the people
that come to the marina come on a bicycle.
So it's not remotely going to fit 915 passengers.
And then all of a sudden, 2 thirds of them
come some other way, no matter how well you sync up the things.
There's no data that supports that.
And the protection for that parking
and the recreational uses themselves go all the way back
to when this property was first filled
with a BCDC permit for recreational purposes.
And they adopted a bay plan that designated this
a waterfront park and protected the recreational uses
and the parking for the recreational uses.
So that's the basis of analysis.
And you need to see what happens
in the CEQA process about that.
The city's proposal would involve 400,000 cubic yards
dredging. Now I ran the environmental department for the Port of Oakland for
$400,000 for dredging. I did a lot of it. It's really hard, the
questions about whether or not it should be done or alternatives should be
pursued and mitigation measures. That's the kind of full discussion the Council
has charged you in an ordinance with considering before you act on a use
permit. There's a lot of problems, there's no funding for this. So as I think several
members have said, there's no critical funding, there's no critical path.
And to the last point, the allowable use.
Right now, as I pointed out in my email, in general,
California planning is supposed to designate land uses, kinds and intensities and locations.
And zoning is supposed to be consistent.
Berkeley zoning is not consistent for the marina.
This would not be a big deal if we were talking about a use in the marina because the marina has similar uses.
But when you put it in what is called a waterfront park by another state agency and CEQA involves
considerations of consistency with those plans as a significant impact, I think you need
to know the outcome of that.
I think you need to know the outcome of the debate about whether or not the city has an
adequate baseline and whether or not they can actually support the conclusions they've
made on transportation and and that's not before you I don't believe that you
have any of the letters that have been submitted in response to the to the
Kittleson report there've been quite a few of them so I don't at this point you
have even the nearest amount of the council has it directed you to do thank
you all right thank you and we will have some time for rebuttal from city staff
So thank you all for that
information and I'm going to
take a few questions from the
staff after because we might
have some follow-up questions
still from public comment.
We'll save that till the end.
Thank you so much for your
comments, Jim.
Erin, come on up, you will have
your two minutes.
So if we don't have actually too
many commenters, so you know,
just keep it around two minutes.
I'll let you know if you're
going over.
Thank you, my name's Erin Dean.
And this is so important.
of this project, it cannot be understated.
Overall, it's going to stretch from Vallejo all the way down
to Redwood City, it's massive.
And I want to say that, I'm going to actually build
on what Jim said, that the ZAB cannot
and should not act on this tonight.
And that was because the resolution,
and I have copies here if you would like them, is 65, 62, 571,
and it establishes fair procedures for your hearings
and it charges you with making land use decisions only
after weighing all the input.
So please, you must wait for the EIR to follow that direction.
And so here's the resolution right here.
And I really like it because it's called fairness.
And I think that's extremely important these days.
I think we're all kind of struggling
with what's happening at many levels.
And we want to be fair and open and have good public input.
So two of the important languages here is weigh all input.
the quote City Council and its subordinate agencies
and staff are charged with making land use decisions
after weighing all input.
I do not understand how you can make a decision
if you don't have the EIR.
And then to consider all testimony.
Quote, final decisions are based on the entire record
after all evidence and testimony has been considered.
So that's direction from City Council
from this resolution right here.
I want to talk about fairness in my 25 seconds.
I was on the Parks, Rec, and Water Commission for nine years.
I served as chair and vice-chair from the very beginning
of this project, and I followed it really closely.
I tried everything that came through as a commissioner.
I took it very seriously.
And I want to say first, there's no general plan
for having a ferry at this location.
I don't see it.
And something that really bothered me
was that early on, they bifurcated this process.
There was a lot of people in the community who wanted us to explore a peer only option,
which would have been financially feasible,
and we were told in no uncertain terms that we could not discuss it.
So basically, they separated the process.
We had this waterfront specific plan,
now B mass, and then you had the ferry,
and they were separated between the two.
I don't understand how we as a city are supposed to be making
good decisions about parking use and everything else when these two really
important visions for the waterfront are actually being separated.
It seems like piecemealing to me.
I'll draw your attention to one thing about parking.
If you look at page 134 of your packet,
so page 175, and this was something that really struck me as a commissioner.
It's the household incomes.
The 35 percent of the people who visit the waterfront make less than $75,000 a year.
us less than the median. The median is at 95,000. And this is exactly where there's
going to be fees put. The people who come, they bring their kids with their picnics and
their dogs and everything and sometimes they have to drive. They need to be able to park
on the south side. It's too far to walk if you have kids all around. And that's where
the fee parking is going to go in. So there's so many unanswered questions. We need this
information before Zab takes a position. So I urge you tonight do not take action
tonight and wait for the EIR. Thank you. Thank you and we appreciate all of your
insights especially as someone who served on the Commission for the
waterfront and everyone else's as well too. Everyone's thoughts are important. I
do have I know I'm breaking my own rule of said we still will come to all the
rest of the public testimony. I do have a question. Has this process or at least
the said us trying to vote on this used permit before the EIR been run by the
city attorney like has this yeah yes yes okay thank you all right we will keep
going on we are not done yet with in-person and we will have more time
for questions Kelly hammer gun come on up your last in person and then I'm
moving to moving to online okay this particular project is coming to you
before the EIR and before you are fully informed because it has met with
considerable public resistance. So this is to get your blessing to move this
along so that you because if you get the EIR and you study this you might make
findings that would persuade you in a different direction and so I urge
you to withhold your vote until you have the EIR and you have had a substantial
time to review it. When I first heard that this was going to be in a plan
that was at a City Council meeting on May 8, 2018 and I have been following
this ever since and so there is there's so much information that I have heard
at other meetings that I would like to share with you which is not possible in
56 seconds. There's a lot of problem with the parking assessment. There are
studies by HUITA of who actually uses the other ferries in the system and it's
our high income earners and we are subsidizing that. If we think about this
as a sustainable way and how our tax money is used I wish it would go to
BART instead of the ferry for the few people that can use it. We had a
discussion about this last night at the Disaster and Fire Safety Commission and
really the thought of this being an emergency backup or an earthquake is
really kind of questionable. They've revised their letter to say you know it
requires continuing exploration. Maybe it could do something but if the roads are
down and no one can come by the roads then how are you going to get anything
from a ferry and if it's electric are you even gonna have the infrastructure
to run it? It's just kind of all crazy stuff to me when we have when we are
going to be facing the 30 million dollar deficit in our city budget and this is
not going to be paid for by WIDA that was the original presentation is we'll
We'll get our ferry, and we'll get our pier,
and Huito will pay for it.
And it just sounds so trite, but it was 2018,
and I thought, yeah, this sounds like,
yeah, we're gonna get our wall with Mexico,
and Mexico's gonna pay for it.
Thank you, Kelly.
We do have to give a little more sentence.
Sorry, don't try to get everyone around three minutes.
I just I just wish you were fully informed in order to take your vote and I ask you to postpone it
There's no harm in postponing it so that you can make a good decision. Did you thank you? Did you submit a card?
Okay. Well, okay. So feel
Do you want any more time? You're welcome, but you do need to come submit a card if you do want to give her your
Time. Yeah, but you are welcome to so that you can give Kelly another
Give it to Aaron Aaron spent all the time
Well then, we do have people online, so we do,
if you are welcome to give your time,
but we will have to do it quickly.
Kelly, I wanna, you,
I don't even know where to go from here.
I just ask you, please, please, please, please wait.
Don't feel pushed.
Make a good decision when you are fully informed.
And there's no reason why this
can't be rescheduled for later.
You got plenty of time to do it.
Thank you.
Okay, wonderful, thank you so much, Kelly.
All right, we are done with in-person then.
I will move over to online.
We have three people online.
So I'm gonna give you two minutes.
I've obviously been a little lax on the two minutes,
but keep it until like no more than two and a half,
three minutes.
I will start to cut you off if you get a little after that.
All right, so Lay Stewart, you will be the first one.
I'm gonna allow you to talk and then you should be good to go.
Awesome, can you hear me?
Yes.
Great, good evening commissioners.
My name is Lee Stewart
and I'm the PRWC commissioner for D2.
I'm here tonight to offer my personal support for this plan.
I'm not speaking on behalf
of the PRWC commission tonight.
I think it was a great plan.
I would have loved to see even more work done here,
more amenities and more ambitious design.
But perfect is the enemy of the good
and this is still a great plan.
I'm excited to see this work get started.
It will transform the waterfront for the better.
The city has done a fantastic job with this proposal
And I hope you will approve this use from tonight to help expedite the process. Thank you.
Thank you so much. Lee. All right, moving right along. Theo, you will be next. I'm going to allow you to talk and you should be good to go.
Hello commissioners. My name is Theo Gordon. I'm the vice chair of the disaster and fire safety commission. Last night we voted on a letter that we wanted to send to you.
But I'm going to read it here on behalf of the commission.
So the Disaster and Fire Safety Commission
is writing to support a continuing conversation
about allowing public ferry service at the Berkeley Pier.
The commission believes that ferry service
is not only an important transportation improvement,
but could also serve as a vital component
of Berkeley's emergency preparedness
and resilience strategy.
In an era of increasing climate related risks,
seismic vulnerability, wildfire threats,
and regional congestion,
maintain diversified and redundant evacuation
infrastructure is essential.
The restoration of the Berkeley Pier
and development of ferry service could provide the city
with an additional water-based travel route,
one that is independent of bridges, highways,
and rail corridors that may be compromised
during and after a major emergency.
Water transportation has historically played a crucial role
in emergency response throughout the Bay Area.
Integrating Berkeley into the regional ferry network
strengthens the city's ability to move first responders,
residents, and workers safely and efficiently
in the event of a large-scale disaster.
As part of the broader SF Bay Ferry system expansion,
the Berkeley Ferry Terminal would enhance coordinated regional evacuation capacity and emergency response operations across the shoreline communities.
By investing in redundant transportation infrastructure today, Berkeley is taking proactive steps to safeguard its community against future disruptions.
We appreciate the Board's careful review of the project to incur consistency with land use regulations, environmental resources, public access requirements, and community compatibility.
We respectfully encourage the Zoning Adjustments Board to consider the potential public safety and resilience benefits of this project as it evaluates the proposed use permit.
Thank you. Thank you so much Theo. All right, we have 1 more person on line that person's guest 1. So guest 1, I'm going to allow you to talk and you should be good.
Hi, my name is Zora. I have live aboard status at the Marina. I offer. I also represent the perspectives of other people who live at the Marina or use it frequently.
I'm neither for or against the Fairey Plan.
I just want the planning process to be conducted in a fair and equitable way that considers
the lives of people who live at the marina.
I saw all the groups that you engaged on the list that you showed in your presentation,
but they appeared to be primarily organizational or stakeholder focused, not truly like people
who live at the marina every day.
The engagement process seems to have been, well, I'm not sure how it was, but I just
I just really want to make sure that the engagement process has incorporated the voices of people who live and use the Marina for their livelihood.
And I really respect the thought that went into the planning framework and land use, but I really want it to be more centered on people who live at the Marina.
And there was a concern raised here about the proposed infrastructure and negative unintended negative.
Consequences and impacts for cost of both marine users and residents.
At the Marina, and that's just 1 of the ways where I feel like a lot of people who live at the Marina have not been adequately adequately engaged in this planning. And I need this to be considered with land use and in future planning.
Okay. So we are on public comment on public comment.
Thank you.
Thank you so much. Your comments is a very unique, not unique,
but it's a very important perspective to have.
So thank you for bringing it here. All right.
We do have that is done online, but said, I want to clarify.
We had two more green cards, Carla. That was, that was you. Okay. Wonderful.
So we had that Kelly, but then there is a Ronald. Ronald,
would you like to speak or not? Did I already.
There you go.
Okay. Perfect. Okay. All right.
good on public comment I am well I guess it is do we have any more questions for
actually sorry present applicants worried you have anything you like say
you can do a rebuttal to obviously what the what the public comment was or if
you have anything to yeah the one thing I want to note regarding questions or
concerns about the parking management study we published the draft parking
management, transportation demand management,
and parking study.
We presented that at the Parks, Recreation,
and Waterfront Commission.
We did hear concern from the public and commissioners
regarding the very specific concerns about the data
and that we did not adequately include midday data
and perhaps were missing the peak
or kind of burying the peak visitation periods.
In response to that, we went back to our consultants
and asked them to take a look at that specifically,
to only look at this midday time period
that the public was concerned about.
That is the addendum to the report,
which was included in your packet.
So we did that specifically in response
to public concern about the data.
The finding in that addendum was that it did not change
the findings that were presented in the report
regarding the capacity of available parking.
Okay. Wonderful.
And I guess that I still have one, I guess,
I still need a bit more clarity of kind of what is
that we're going to be able to
get the change within our purview
and within our scope because
obviously the parking study was a
part of our staff report but if
it is just more about the change
of use I'm not sure if that is a
part of what we are also kind of
voting on tonight. I'm not sure
who best to kind of answer where
that lands and I don't know if
we could get some extra clarity
on exactly what we were voting
on.
that we are here because we are establishing,
we're proposing to establish a new use,
which is transportation, and within the U District,
a use permit is required to establish a new use.
So that's sort of, you know,
the boundaries of why we are here.
We are not asking for approval of a parking management plan.
As I mentioned, that plan is not only subject
to other agencies' review and input,
but will be designed to be a living and flexible document
So that we can actually implement parking management strategies as the, the need arises. And as we figure out where those pressure points are and what doesn't does not work. So, again, the, the use we are here to.
To establish transportation as a use at the Berkeley pier, and you are required her Berkeley municipal code to consider the structure or additions that are required to accommodate that use.
Okay, thank you for clarifying that. Again, um, any more questions before we close the public hearing? Okay, we're going to I will make a motion to close the public hearing. Can I have a second?
2nd, oh, okay. All right. We have 1 hand just sneak in at the end. We are you luck. You got it. All right. So 1 more person online. Thank you so much staff Camille. I'm going to allow you to talk. You will have a little over 2 minutes.
Keep it around that. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Sorry. It took me a 2nd to get to the, the, the function for raising my hand. Thank you so much. Really appreciate you guys looking at this tonight. And I really do hope. I just wanted to put another underline that we've talked about extensive community outreach here, much like the speaker before me just mentioned here.
and I really am hoping that you listen to what some of the comments were.
Because I've been involved in this like Kelly Hammergren for a while,
and it's been actually,
I would really question the claim that there was extensive community outreach.
In many of the meanings about this project,
this transportation project,
We weren't allowed to talk about perhaps maybe not a ferry as an alternative or maybe an alternative of putting the ferry in another location, like the in Marina location number of these community meetings that are listed there were at very high levels without a lot of the details of this extremely complex project.
I was even part of a group of people that sent a petition of 950 signatures to the council to ask
them to please do stop splitting this. Like Erin Deem said the bifurcation of the waterfront
specific plan with the peer plan with the Peter Ferry plan. It makes no sense because since the
Peer was like our focal point.
It's a historical peer for so 100 years now,
and yet it was complete.
We weren't even, if we're in a meeting for the B-MASP,
we weren't allowed to talk about the peer and vice versa.
But council seems to have just brushed aside
many concerns from actual stakeholders at the marina,
and many frequent waterfront visitors
from Berkeley and from all over.
The latest has been this issue with the parking access,
And those concerns were just brushed aside and we're facing people that go down there are facing a, yes, a restriction of of parking because of a 500 dollar annual pass being proposed.
And that is the way that the parking is to be managed down there at the expense of recreational visitors.
So, another 1 is, there was community engagement around the sort of sunset viewing area at seawall drive and staff said, okay, we'll keep those spaces. And yet now you look at the plan and those are completely eliminated.
I think there's about 70 out of the 90 spaces are being eliminated. So, we really do hope that you take this opportunity to slow this process down. So these details can come out more.
Um, it seems to have been, uh, uh, well, very much of a WEDA, very WEDA is very excited about this plan, but we need to slow it down. It's just been from day 1 almost like it's WEDA's way, the highway literally.
And WEDA's described Berkeley as it's missing tooth and it's very, you know, configuration or across the Bay. We need to look at it from our perspective.
Yeah, and last night BC DC raised a lot of engineering concerns and if you want to think about transportation at the pier, I think you need to look at those concerns as well. And please, please learn more about the project. Thank you.
Thank you so much, and I'm very glad that you go. We got to see you before we close the public hearing because everyone's perspectives is very important. I will now make a motion to close the public hearing. So I have a second. I have a second. Perfect. All right. I'll take a roll call vote. Um, all those in favor say aye.
I messed it up last time. All those say nay. All right. Perfect. All right. Public hearing is closed. Who wants to kick us off on comments? I know we have some opinions on this board. So someone, come on. All right. Vice Chair Young.
I'm going to say the same thing.
So I have no opinion on the ferry.
It sounds like a great idea to me.
And my issue is not with the ferry, but with the process.
Despite your description of what we're voting on,
that's not what the staff report says we're voting on.
The conditions of approval say we
voting on that particular project that's there to accept and you know that we
have a responsibility to the public and to agencies that we treat them the same
when they want a permit we have and it seems to me when I looked at the
schedule that a very large housing project would be delighted if they could
get us to approve their use permit before the EIR is done.
And, you know, those permits are appealable to the Council.
So it's – it's not – I'm not convinced that it's on the critical path, and if it's
not on the critical path, then I don't want to break with tradition and the legal requirements
that we approve – that we see the EIR to guide us in our decision-making.
The only reason I can see that that's being proposed is to accelerate the project and
any developer in the country would love to have something where he could accelerate his
project and so I don't, I can't support this project as proposed because there's confusion
on what we're actually approving and I'm not comfortable doing it prior to the EIR
because I think it sets a very bad precedent and I think we need to have the same standard
for public agencies that we have for private firms coming in and getting a permit.
So, you know, it's not personal at all.
It's just, you know, it seems to me
that the process is being pushed to be accelerated
because you want to get down there sooner.
And I understand that,
but there are certain legal responsibilities
we have at ZAM that I don't think I can comply with
if I approve this project, so thank you.
Thank you, Commissioner Sanderson.
I honestly do have to have similar concerns and said, well, I do very much support a ferry down there. I want to make sure the process is done. Oh yeah. Don't worry for coming back. Just saying, thank you so much. I am.
I'm also kind of leaning that way, but yes, go for it. Okay. I'm going to structure my comment.
In a broad abstract affective sense, and then transition to the relevant policies before us.
So, I, as a person, am someone who looks around at the state of how infrastructure is built.
And I'm seeing what's happening in Santa Clara County, part spending the most out of any
transportation agency in the world to do underground tunneling, looking at California high speed
rail, seeing years of one of our most important infrastructure projects spent on environmental
review, seeing delays, cost escalations, and just all the necessary building that
we need to do to address climate change, be made more expensive, be delayed, and all
the while we're stuck with the status quo. So that's kind of the perspective I'm
coming from, you know, looking at 50 years of, you know, judicial building upon
on Friends of Mammoths and sequels past.
Anyway, unfortunately, so I'll transition now.
How do we take the planning documents before us tonight,
City Municipal Code, make a decision?
Unfortunately, we don't have an adopted specific plan
to guide our decision, like you mentioned.
That was unfortunately delayed for a number of reasons.
We do have the general plan
and we do have the Municipal Code.
So the Municipal Code presents us
of the different use permit approval process
relative to most permits, this body hears.
In this case, 23.208.020, subdivision C,
there's a three-step process.
First, it goes to the Planning Commission,
which it already has,
then it goes to the Zoning Adjustments Board,
which it is tonight.
And then after that,
the final administrative approval body is the City Council.
the City Council may affirm, reverse,
or modify the ZAB decision.
So I am personally okay with the fact
that the EIR is still underway
as we consider the use permit tonight.
This council is the ultimate
administrative decision-making body.
Even within permits that we're more familiar with hearing,
that's the case for commissions that precede us.
For example, demolition permits
that go before the Landmarks Preservation Commission
don't have all their environmental documentation
all done, for example, that body, for instance,
has historically made decisions that then, you know,
change the scope of the environmental documentation done.
And then it comes to us because in that case,
the municipal code requires ZAB
to be the CEQA determination body.
Here, there's nothing that precludes us,
or put differently, something that requires the EIR
to be done when it's before ZAB.
That's kind of just a normative cultural thing we're used to.
But given the relevant policies before us,
I am comfortable making a decision on the use permit tonight
prior to a draft EIR being released.
Yeah, I'll leave my comments there.
Thank you.
Thank you, Vice Chair Young.
I think you make some excellent points.
Who wants to go next?
to be able to do that. So I'm
That's on page 8 in the first bullet.
That is daily, 955 riders per day.
Thank you.
And that is assuming a two way ridership.
So that would be both to San Francisco and back full.
Everyone who was gracing the ferry that day is 900 and something riders.
955 unique riders.
Unique riders.
So within the, if you read the business plan the number will be double that because they
they consider boardings. And so we assume that they are two way round trip. So they
have roughly 1800 boardings, which results in about 900 and that 955 riders. I appreciate
that clarification. And the reason why I asked that question is because my comments are structured
from the hat I've been more comfortable wearing, which is a transportation planner. And I think
As Commissioner Choi mentioned, we are spending a lot of money on transportation projects
in the Bay Area, and they are not doing enough to curb the overwhelming congestion that we
currently have.
I think the Bay Bridge is over capacity nearly every hour of the day, and opportunities to
provide additional transportation uses to get people to and from where they need to
to go is a very vital aspect.
It's consistent with Berkeley's goal
of reducing greenhouse gas emissions,
and it's consistent with, I think,
a lot of people's desires to have better mobility
within the area.
So I would also like to echo the idea
of being comfortable with this procedural process,
understanding that the main difference I see
between what we are being asked to do tonight
versus our usual procedure,
is that the council is being asked
to make the final decision.
Whereas in normal circumstances,
they are only able to appeal here and appeal.
And so I think it's a kind of a shift of decision making,
not an absence of it.
Thank you, Commissioner Palmatier.
I think that is indeed truly the difference
of what's going on here versus what we normally do.
And that is a very important distinction,
is that indeed we are not making a final decision.
council will be making a final decision.
Being said, still up to here for more of you.
If anyone has anything more to say,
if not, we can't take it though.
Sure.
Mr. Allen.
I intend to abstain for reasons similar
around the lack of supporting documentation.
The staff report to me is not clear
about our ability to bifurcate a use
without information on structures.
And then there's no details on the structures.
And then the draft findings are,
it won't be detrimental to health, safety, peace,
morals, comfort, because we're establishing
a transportation option.
So I'm not comfortable that I have the information
that I need to make those findings.
And I also don't, the other piece of it
that makes me uncomfortable is the idea
that the city council would rely on a decision
that Zab is making.
Like our decision is informing them.
But we have very little information to then synthesize
or inform our decision.
It may or may not.
I mean, there's been a ton of process.
In just looking at this, there's been 40 meetings.
I have attended some of those online.
I thought you did a fantastic job.
I've been in breakout groups.
I've talked about paid parking.
I was the voice like, yeah, pay for parking.
This is what we do, get people on the bus,
get them on their bikes.
There's been a ton of process, maybe too much process.
Maybe it's been going on for too long.
So I don't want to be slowing things down.
But my opinion on ferries and we can see the Richmond ferry,
we can see the Oakland ferry,
we can see how they interact in the Bay Area,
we can see the recreation uses that happen next to them,
it's fantastic to have examples
that we can go visit ourselves.
But the question for can I make the findings
with the information I have in front of me,
I'm not gonna be comfortable with that
and again, I anticipate abstaining.
Thank you, Mr. Allen.
Before Commissioner Daphne, I just want to say,
because I was nervous, just for the record,
I attributed the earlier words to Commissioner Troy,
and they should have been to Commissioner Young.
So I just wanted to clarify that.
Thank you so much.
That's always good to clarify.
And said, does anyone else?
I also have some thoughts, but I'm also so happy to have people.
See first?
OK, I can go.
All right, I said there's a very, oh, sorry.
Oh, Commissioner Shelby, sorry.
I turn my light on.
Oh, sorry.
I can never tell.
Some people have their lights on.
And we're not talking.
But I happily go after you, too.
No, no.
You go first.
Yeah, OK.
Yeah, normally, we're dealing with a housing emergency
and a housing crisis.
And this is a time when we're dealing
with a transit emergency and a transit crisis.
Interestingly enough, the tube was shut down today.
So I remember that quite well.
I saw a lot of people standing anxious about how
they're going to make it across.
As someone who's taken ferries, ridden bikes to ferries,
and taken support many more to transit,
and really appreciate the discussion this evening.
I would like to make a motion to approve as proposed
with one condition, and the condition of approval
would be such that when the project goes before Council,
that it's very explicit that the zoning board decision was
made, whichever decision is made this evening,
was made prior to having the DEIR or the EIR or the MMRP.
And if that's explicit to them
and they know they're the backstop,
then it's an issue of trust.
So I feel comfortable approving it with that motion.
I will second that because indeed
that was about what I was about to say too, so no, excellent.
And now I completely agree as long to me as Council knows,
and it's very clear and explicit to them,
yes, that that is not what our vote is about,
then I indeed also feel comfortable legally
to vote on this and to approve the project.
the report is done. I'm just
kind of curious about if that
happens, how does that I've
heard that it wasn't part of
the critical path and then I
heard that this would you know,
why slow it down? It's already
been years and years. I guess I
had a question of if we were to
delay the report, I'm not
question of if we were to delay it or what that do to the project. I won't let
you would need to make a substitute motion and get a second well first let's
have want to ask the question first but yes that is definitely an option on the
table see your question can you state your question one more time Commissioner
Thompson cuz yeah we'll let staff but yes that is totally on the table there
can be an alternate motion yeah my question is if if if the vote is delayed
waiting on the report, how does that impact the timing
of the project?
Yeah, go ahead.
The answer is I don't know.
If ZAB does not take action tonight,
then I would be circling back with the city attorney's office
to ask what that means.
In the sense of does that mean we come back to ZAB
at a later date or does that mean that council considers
no action when they take action?
I don't know the answer to that
because we're in this weird unclassified zone.
So I would have to ask them.
And what I would ask if you decide to take that motion
is that you provide clarity
on when you would prefer staff to come back.
That is, would you prefer staff to come back
between release of the draft EIR
but prior to council action
or only after council has taken action on the EIR
because the answer to your question
depends on when exactly the board felt comfortable
taking action.
Mr. Thompson of course.
Just a follow up question.
So let's say we vote yes.
Let's zoning says this zone can be used
for transportation period.
The report comes back and there are,
let's say controversial findings environmentally.
What happens then?
So then council would have to decide
what action they want to take on the EIR.
They could adopt an EIR even if it had significant impacts
if they found that there were overriding considerations.
So if they found essentially that despite these impacts,
the project had enough value to the city
that they wanted to proceed.
They can take that action.
And then whether it happens at that meeting
or subsequent meeting, they can also take action
on the use permit to affirm, deny,
or change the board's action.
So, or council can decide that given
these environmental impacts,
they are not willing to adopt the EIR.
If they do not adopt the EIR,
they cannot issue a use permit.
Thank you.
Just to add on to what you're saying,
because I wanted to add this
because you clarified this earlier,
if there are significant impacts,
there would be a mitigation requirement
associated with the project, that is a requirement.
So we will be, the city and the EIR is required
to develop and implement mitigation
and monitoring measures, period.
However, the EIR could find that even with implementation
of those mitigation measures,
which are required to reduce the impacts
they can. They may find that even if you implement these measures, you still have a significant impact.
And that is what an EIR does. That is, you can use lesser environmental documents if you don't have impacts, essentially.
Thank you. I appreciate everyone clarifying because indeed this is a very different process for us now.
And indeed, you know, I know without being able to kind of see the EIR,
it does kind of feel like we're kind of more just checking a box of like, yes, very, very, very good here.
And, and I know we do, yeah, we do obviously won't want that.
But we also want to advise our council as best as possible.
They obviously always have a lot on their plate.
And that's a lot, you know, a whole EIR is a lot to take in.
And while there's a lot more concerns than just that.
And so, you know, at least for me, even though I might kind of agree this is being done legally
and that I will vote yes most likely on this,
is that it does feel like I'm still not helping,
or as a body, we're not helping the council
kind of as much as I would like to,
just as an advisory role with people
with a bunch of expertise in these kind of issues.
So that, to me, is something I am feeling
a little impact from regarding this vote.
And that, I guess that's that.
But besides that, I did second yes's motion.
We are still totally able to hear
either friendly amendments or even just a whole alternative motion so anyone is
still welcome to open up to that if not we can take a roll call vote right now
because we do have both emotions all right I think we're ready to take a roll
call vote oh yeah right yes we're ready let's do it so this will be a vote that
was a motion by Commissioner Duffy and seconded by chair Gaffney adding a
condition of approval that states that the ZAB made their decision prior to the
EIR and MMRP being published. Hope I'm getting that right. And if that's
correct then we will go ahead and take a vote. When I call your name please state
your vote. Commissioner Duffy? Yes. Chair Gaffney? Yes. Commissioner Thompson?
abstain commissioner Paul Mattier yes Commissioner Allen abstain
Commissioner Choi yes vice chair young yes Commissioner Sanderson I'm going to
abstain and I wanted to explain a little bit why it's not just the not having the
EIR but it's not clear what we're voting on the conditions of approval and the
project description is a lot more than just approving transportation use on
that site. So I find it, it's not clear to me why we're even voting except the
code says to vote because we don't have all the information, we have a confusing
staff report about what it is we are actually approving. So there's just,
I'm not going to say that. I'm
transportation, but I'm really I voted abstain because I also know the importance of health
safety in our environment and it really I don't feel comfortable voting for something
when I'm not clear of of not adding to the problem. I really want to see this happen
and I want to see it. It's disappointing that it's taken so long, but it's just it. I fear
looking back and regretting something, not knowing what I voted for.
Thank you, Commissioner Thompson. And thank you all for all very, very insightful comments.
I normally say so. I mean, I guess we are still, I said, so what do we, how do I say this? We are
are still approving the findings for approval
and just being recommended onto council.
Did the motion pass?
Yeah, with three abstains and four, yeah, it's still passed.
Yeah, so five is the quorum and five is needed for action,
so it is approved.
Okay, so yes, the motion passed,
and it will obviously was gonna move
onto council regardless.
So, thank you all.
I usually have more of a spiel afterwards,
but that's all for today.
All right, thank you all for that,
And thank you all to members of the public
for being here and sitting with us through all this.
We do have ZAB members,
at least we obviously have a couple more things to do,
but members of the public and applicants,
we are all good to hear.
We will move right along on non, other things.
All right.
Do we want to take a break at all
before I figured we just wanted to keep going?
Okay, we're gonna keep going.
I figured, obviously, if anyone at any time
does ever say you need to break, let me know,
with the non-captioner thing.
But I was just gonna keep going.
And luckily, we actually don't have any subcommittee reports
because our last week's meeting was canceled
because we didn't have any projects.
So that's easy, we're moving right along.
I mean, so staff will just go on to you,
whether it's a correspondent, ZAB announcements,
or obviously we'll vote on chair and vice chair
for next year or two.
So I think we'll just get right into elections.
Anyone?
We're jumping into elections?
I think so, I think that's really all we have,
unless anyone else has correspondence they'd like to say,
but I think we're right into.
I would like to vote for Kimberly Gaffney
to continue as chair.
Thank you, I'd love to.
I think it's, I think a two year position is a great thing.
Thank you.
I would second that, I assume that's a motion.
That's a nomination.
Okay.
Thank you all, I would be honored.
Do we nominate the chair and vice chair too?
Yes.
At the same time?
Okay, that's what we do.
I think.
I think.
But.
Yeah.
Yes, I'd like to nominate, make a motion to nominate, um, the current Vice Chair Young
as Vice Chair.
I second that.
Again.
That's a joke.
Okay.
Any other nominations?
Oh, you guys got my second for Vice Chair Young?
Okay.
I got that.
Yes.
Thank you.
and I guess we can do a roll call vote
for the nominations that we have now
for Chair and Vice Chair.
So there's a motion, sorry, Commissioner Allen.
And a second from, I think it's from Sanderson,
Commissioner Sanderson, to nominate for Chair Gaffney.
And a motion from Commissioner Gaffney,
chair Gaffney and a seconder from commissioner Thompson to nominate vice
chair young for vice chair for the office of vice chair again so we'll take
a vote on that when I call your name please state your vote commissioner
Duffy yes chair Gaffney yes thank you all so much commissioner Thompson yes
Commissioner Palmatier.
Yes.
Commissioner Allen.
Yes.
Commissioner Choi.
Yes.
Vice Chair Young.
Yes.
Commissioner Sanderson.
Yes.
So those are the nominations.
All right.
I retract my previous thank you, and I say thank you now.
Oh, right.
Oh, that was just for the nomination.
Now we can take the vote.
Never mind.
All right.
So sorry.
I retract that.
Thank you as well.
We're supposed to take a vote separately for the chair and then the vice chair.
So for the chair officer, the position of chair, chair Gaffney nominated for the position
of chair.
We'll take a vote for that.
When I call your name, please state your vote.
Commissioner Duffy.
Yes.
Chair Gaffney.
Yes.
Tompson? Yes. Commissioner Paul Mater? Yes. Commissioner Allen? Yes. Commissioner Choi? Yes. Vice
Chair Young? Yes. Commissioner Sanderson? Yes. Thank you. Alright, thank you. And now we will take the vote on Vice
Chair Young to take the office of Vice Chair again. And when I call your name,
please state your vote. Commissioner Duffy. Yes. Chair Gaffney. Yes. Commissioner
Thompson. Yes. Commissioner Palmatier. Yes. Commissioner Allen. Yes. Commissioner Choi. Yes. Vice
Chair Young. Yes. Commissioner Sanderson. Yes. Thank you. All right. Wonderful. The
last thing I said, unless anyone has anything to say, but I'm sure we're all
pretty done. Thank you all again for a really wonderful meeting. I will make a
motion to adjourn. Motion by chair Gaffney and second by Commissioner Allen to
adjourn and I call your name please state your vote. Commissioner Duffy? Yes.
Chair Gaffney. Yes, I would call Matera. I'm sorry. Yep, no worries. Second by him.
And yes, on for me. Chair Gaffney? Yes.
Yes.
Commissioner Thompson?
Yes.
Commissioner Calmatier?
Yes.
Commissioner Allen?
Yes.
Commissioner Choi?
Yes.
Vice Chair Young?
Yes.
Commissioner Sanderson?
Yes.
Great, thank you.
All right, and I said it does seem like our next meeting is actually March 12th, which
actually that means that's the second.
So it's actually a second Tuesday or Thursday.
March 12th.
Remember, next month, a little different, it's the second, Thursday, not the fourth.
So, yes.
March 12th, 2026, see you there.
So generally for the rest of the year it will be a second Thursday.